“Section 2(14)(iii)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(14)(iii)225 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(14)(iii) is CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigha (105 ITR 133), cited in 93 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(14)(iii)

CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigha

105 ITR 133 · 1976 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The character of land as agricultural land or a capital asset is a question of fact determined by the cumulative effect of all circumstances. Classification in revenue records alone is not conclusive evidence of agricultural use; actual agricultural operations must be proven.

PCIT, Central-3 v. Allied Perfumers (P.) Ltd.

124 Taxmann.com 358 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

The case is cited for various issues including the definition of capital assets, reassessment procedures under sections 153A and 153C, and the effect of clarificatory amendments.

CIT v. Siddharth J Desai

139 ITR 628 · 1983 · High Court

citing judgments

This case lays down 13 specific tests and factors for determining whether land qualifies as agricultural land under the Income-tax Act. It holds that obtaining permission to sell agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes shortly before the sale does not automatically alter its agricultural character.

Sudhir Kumar Shah (HUF) v. CIT-III, Ludhiana)

224 Taxmann 178 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

The addition of cash deposits to an assessee's income under Section 68 is justified when the Assessment Officer notices huge cash deposits, as the onus is on the assessee to explain their nature and source.

Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

248 ITR 432 · 2001 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Expenses are to be apportioned among various units based on turnover, a method approved by the Supreme Court. The method of allocating exempt income by way of dividends to total gross revenue is also upheld.

Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT

209 ITR 946 · 1994 · High Court

citing judgments

The potential for non-agricultural use or the purchaser's intention does not alter the agricultural character of land for capital gains purposes if it was agricultural at the time of sale and prior use. Market conditions leading to a high price do not change the essential nature of the land.

Tulla Veerender v. Addl. CIT

160 TTJ 435 · 2013 · ITAT

citing judgments

Transfer of land not falling under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, where the land is recorded as agricultural in revenue records and the assessee is engaged in agricultural operations, cannot be considered a transfer of a capital asset.

Dr. Motibhai D. Patel v. Commissioner of Income-tax

127 ITR 671 · 1981 · High Court

citing judgments

If agricultural operations are being carried out on land at the time of sale and revenue records indicate it is agricultural land, a presumption arises that it is agricultural in character, which the revenue must rebut. Permission to convert land to non-agricultural use does not render it non-agricultural if not obtained before the sale.

Judgments citing Section 2(14)(iii)

Shobha Singh, Shahdol Madhya Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Shahdol Madhya Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 115/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ayush Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 282

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH ‘DB’, JABALPUR Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh

Krishna Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 7590/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 50C

before the first day of the previous year. 4. As per the notification under Section 2(1A)(C), proviso, Clause (II)(B) and Section 2(14)(III)(B) notification No. (SO 9447 F.No.164/3/87-IOTA.I dated 06.01.1994 (copy enclosed) the area of the capital assets notified by above circular Ghaziabad ... away from the outer limit of the Municipality to come Smt. Krishna Devi vs. ITO out of the clutches of provision of Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act. As per the Remand Report, it is clear that the village Motra/Morti is 2.5-03 K.M. away from the outer

DCIT, Cochin vs. Shri M George ( Mukkadayil Joseph George), Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 525/COCH/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

For Appellant: Sri R. Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

from different parties at a total cost of Rs.2.28 lakhs. Further, the land being agricultural, i.e., not a ‘capital asset’ in terms of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, which reads as under, no income by way of capital gain arose on it’s transfer, and which explained ... which only is relevant inasmuch as, as afore-stated, the subject land does not fall under either clause (a) or clause (b) of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, the opening part of which continues as such. The assessee’s argument – and which explains our second reason

Ranjita Rangnath Mhatre, Mumbai vs. ITO, 29(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2498/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Alibag, Dist. Raigad, not appreciating that the land sold was agricultural land and therefore not a capital asset as per exception contained in section 2(14)(iii) of the I T Act 1961 and accordingly the surplus arising on sale of such land was not liable

Bijender Singh Thakran, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2017/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Disposal Of The Appeal.” Ground No. 1 & 2:

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 4Section 44ASection 69A

through the notification, filed by the appellant before me. This circular deals with the issue of urbanization. This cannot be applied here because section 2(14)(iii)(b) has been substituted w.e.f. 13/12/1962. The circular cited by the appellant is dated 06/01/1994. Hence, after retrospective amendment of the section w.e.f

Allied Photographics India Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S Alliedphotographics Vs. Pr.Cit-1, India Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Room No.330, Kasturi Buildings, 3Rd Floor, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. : Aabca2068A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitish Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Smiti Samant. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-1, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nitish Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Smiti Samant. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

Kanpur Nagar Nigam (Kanpur Municipal Corporation). As the said land is not exempt from the definition of capital asset as per section 2(14)(iii) (a) & (b) of the IT Act the assessee should have offered the income as long term capital gains in his Return of Income. Hence ... observations of the Pr. CIT are not correct that, the agricultural land is situated within the limits of municipality and the provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a)&(b) of the Act are attracted. Further the Pr.CIT has relied on the Google map, which was not provided and also overlooked

Meka Kasi Viseswarudu, Vizianagaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 212/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.212/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Meka Kasi Visweswarudu Vs. Income Tax Officer K-5 Pradeep Nagar Ward-1 Vt Agraharam Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Abvpm2320H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri YA Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य

Anand Surana, Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 192/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.192/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Anand Surana, Nanesh Kripa, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aosps5275H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

authority certifying that the agricultural land sold by the assessee was situated beyond the specified distance from the municipal limits as mentioned in Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act was available on record; (ii) that no documents were available on record which would corroborate that the lands in question ... assessee was situated beyond the specified distance from the municipal limits as 16 Anand Surana Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G.) mentioned in Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act was available on record ; (ii) that there were no documents available on record which would corroborate that the lands

Taksonz Developers and Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2696/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi12 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2013-14 Taksonz Developers & Ito Infrastructure Ltd Vs Ward- 25 (1) 4348/4C, Ansari Road, New Delhi Darya Ganj, New Delhi- 110001 Pan No.Aaact6124D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 246Section 250(6)Section 271

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. N

Ganpat Sahu, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-4(5), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 61/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 61/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ganpat Sahu S/O. Late Shri Sattusahu, Dabripara, Near Krishna Public School, Village-Dunda, P.O. Sejbahar, Raipur (C.G.)-492015 Pan : Fzxps0022R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(5), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

being situated within the specified distance from the municipal limits of Raipur Nagar Nigam was a capital asset as per clause (b) to Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, therefore, the consideration received on the sale of the same was exigible to capital gain tax in his hands

Prakashsinh Thakor, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 39/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Prakashsinh Thakor, A.C.I.T., 53, Pratap Nagar, Delad, Olpad, Circle2(2), Vs. Surat-394540 Surat. Pan: Alhpt 9125 B Appellant Respondednt

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT area which is more than 8 KM beyond the Municipal limits and was not a capital asset within the definition of section 2(14)(iii). Though, the assessee in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act filed return of income declaring income

Baiju Roy, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 13/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 10(37)Section 133(6)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 45(5)Section 54BSection 54F

letter No.2074 dated 05.12.2018 that the land in question was agricultural land and the same was situated within 3 K.M. of Municipal council. Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) says as follows : "(iii) agricultural land in India not being, land situate - (a) In any area, which is comprised within

Deputy Commissiner of Income Tax, Lic Building vs. M/S Gee Vee Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLEH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

` आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Vision Estates Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 266/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLEH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

` आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Chokhi Dhani Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 265/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLEH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

` आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 264/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLEH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

` आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Sankoch Kumar, Hapur vs. ITO Ward - 3(5), Hapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 7486/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7486/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम Sankoch Kumar Ito Vs. Village-Atoota, Hapur, Ward 3(5) C/O R K Garg, T-314, Hapur. Ganga Plaza, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh Pan No. Dcypk0324J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 2(14)(iii)

holding that the land sold by the assessee is not agricultural land and is a capital asset under the provisions of Section 2(14)(iii). 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri R.K. Garg through letter dated 10.03.2023 requested for some time

ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi vs. Kamlesh Kumar Rathi, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 823/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 68

money in cash on sale of land, however, since the land sold is agricultural land, hence, is not capital asset in terms of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, the capital gain derived from sale of land is fully exempt from taxation. Therefore, on-money received will also partake

ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi vs. Kamlesh Kumar Rathi, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 822/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 68

Daryab Singh, Palwal vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1664/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C(2)

certificate obtained by AO defined the Bhulwana village Border from Hodal Municipal limit and not the distance of plot in question. 4. Section 2(14)(iii) of IT Act, 1961 defines agricultural land. As per clause (a) the assessee fulfil all the conditions noted therein